Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reproductive Health Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate concurs with House on prohibition of public funding for abortion; 21–7
Summary
The Utah Senate concurred in third substitute Senate Bill 68 to prohibit state funding for abortions except in narrow health exceptions tied to a pregnant woman’s attending physician; the concurrence carried 21–7 with one absent after floor debate about legal risks and scope.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah State Senate on Feb. 12 concurred in the House amendment to third substitute Senate Bill 68, a measure that prohibits state funding of abortions except in narrowly described health circumstances determined by the pregnant woman’s attending physician. The concurrence passed 21–7 with one senator absent.
Senator Bramble, sponsor of the third substitute, described how the House’s amendment clarified the health exception and said the bill “prohibits state funding of abortion, except for … in the professional judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician, the abortion is necessary to prevent permanent, irreparable, and grave damage to a major bodily function.” He urged the chamber to concur with the amended language.
Opponents and several senators expressed concern about the breadth of the bill and potential legal and fiscal consequences. Senator Aaron explained his “no” vote by raising a hypothetical in which a single physician’s action could put a large institution at risk, saying, “if a physician in a clinic ... performed an abortion ... the entire university system would lose their Medicaid funding, would lose their CHIP funding, etcetera, etcetera.”
Sponsor Bramble responded on the floor that he had discussed the bill with the attorney general’s office and legislative counsel and believes the measure "will pass legal muster," but he acknowledged that enforcement and funding reductions would require future appropriations decisions.
After the debate the clerk recorded the concurrence tally and the bill will be sent to the House for the speaker’s signature.
Next steps: The bill was returned to the House for final processing; proponents indicated they expect legal challenges were possible but said the measure sets criteria future legislatures and appropriators would use when deciding funding allocations.
